This case concerned a claim under an insurance policy for theft of a boat and trailer allegedly left on the side of a road when the trailer tire became flat. The Court held that the assured and his witnesses were not credible and concluded the assured had failed to prove his case. In reaching its conclusion the Court took into …
Full SummarySt. Lawrence Cement Inc. v. Wakeham & Sons Ltd., 1995 CanLII 2482
This action involved a stranding of a barge due to the negligence of the tug. The towage contract specifically provided that the barge owner would be responsible for insurance on the barge and cargo and further provided that the towage was to be at the sole risk of the barge owner. At Trial, the Judge found that these provisions did …
Full SummaryHumble v. The "Queen of Alberni", Reg. No.C940031, (B.C.S.C.)
This was an application by the Defendant for a stay of the Plaintiff’s action on the grounds that there were similar actions pending in the Federal Court of Canada. The Defendant wanted all actions consolidated. The British Columbia Supreme Court refused the application on the basis that the Plaintiff’s claim might be time barred in the Federal Court and the …
Full SummarySnair v. Halifax Insurance, 1995 CanLII 4400
In this matter the Plaintiff sought a declaration of coverage. The Plaintiff had earlier been found 100% liable for a very serious boating accident that rendered his former housemate a quadriplegic. The insurer denied coverage on the grounds of an exclusion in the policy excluding coverage to " any person residing in your household " . The Court held that …
Full SummaryDaniele v. Creglia, No. 4028-93, (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.)
This was an action by a Plaintiff/passenger against an owner/master for damages for personal injury suffered when a small vessel crashed into a breakwater. The Court held that the owner/master was clearly negligent in travelling at an excessive rate of speed and in not maintaining a proper lookout. The only real issue was whether the owner could limit his liability …
Full SummaryJoys v. Canada, [1996] 1 FC 149
This unusual case concerned whether a commercial fishing licence could be seized under the provisions of the Customs Act. The facts of the case were that the fishing vessel "Lloyd B. Gore" had been spotted by the U.S. Coast Guard returning from the South China Sea. The vessel was tracked and was ultimately seized with a cargo of marijuana. The …
Full SummarySeamaid Fishing Ltd. v. 328174 B.C. Ltd., 1995 CanLII 254
This was an action in negligence for failure on the part of a manufacturer of rebuilt injectors to warn of defects in the injectors. In December, 1988, twelve fuel injectors, rebuilt by the Defendant, were installed in the Plaintiff’s vessel. In April, 1989, one of these injectors failed after only 200 hours service when a tip broke off. In that …
Full SummarySanmammas Compania Maritima S.A. v. The " Netuno", No. T-2428-89 (F.C.T.D.).
The issue in this case was damages. The Plaintiff’s ship was hit while moored. The Defendants, who admitted liability, argued that the ship was detained for a longer period than necessary because of other repairs being done at the same time as the repairs to the areas damaged by the collision. On the evidence presented, the Court rejected the arguments …
Full SummaryValley Towing Ltd. v. Celtic Shipyards (1988) Ltd., [1995] 3 FC 527
In this matter a barge under tow of the Plaintiff’s tug collided with and caused extensive damage to various docks and vessels. The Plaintiff tug owner admitted liability and commenced limitation proceedings. The Plaintiff then brought a motion for a stay of all proceedings upon payment of the limitation fund ($42,000) into Court. The Court allowed the Plaintiff’s motion but …
Full SummaryValley Towing Ltd. v. Celtic Shipyards (1988) Ltd., (August 22, 1995) No. T-1492-95
This was an application in limitation proceedings for inspection of a ship’s steering system. The shipowner contested the application arguing that it would be inconvenient and that it should not be done until all claimants in the limitation proceedings were known. The Court acknowledged that the inconvenience of the shipowner was a matter to take into account but held that …
Full Summary